Here is a scene that doesn't suit a grad, shot with a K5 (photos a bit titchy as I no longer have the originals):

No problem, hold the highlights and pull details from what appears pure black:

Big Crop:

Here is a comparison of the K20 and the K5, no need to tell you which is which. I chose these because the scenes and exposures are directly comparable. I had a K7 for a short while too and the noise performance is worse than the K20.

The original exposures:

In Lightroom, raise exposure 3 stops and raise shadows all the way to the right:

100% crops of sky:

The K5 sensor represented a quantum leap. That won't happen with the K-1. The D810 is better than the K5 but the performance gap between them is nowhere near the gap above, not even close. That's why I don't think you won't see a huge gain with the K-1 (same sensor as the Nikon) and that's why I reckon a minimal cost upgrade from K7 to K5 is the biggest photographic bang for buck.

Spot on. For dynamic range the K5 takes some beating. If I know I'm going to be taking pictures in contrasty situations, for example, inside a room with the bright window in view, I'll always choose the K5.

Maybe the K1 will be even better, I don't know. I hope it will, because this is important to lots of people who will be spending over a grand and understandably have high hopes and expectations.

Thanks Adrian, that's a powerful demonstration of some of the points that have been made recently! Certainly there's a huge amount of rescue available from those K5 underexposed areas, and it looks perfectly usable as well for screen use at least, maybe even prints.(I presume no NR processing ....?).

The potential is even greater with an ETTR approach, where those shadow areas were exposed higher. I've no doubt that with a K5 I would be less likely to turn to HDR and more likely to use single shots and two shot blends, although the HDR processing is fun and absorbing.

If the argument is restricted to noise and DR related IQ matters, then your 'incredible' claim about the leap from K7 to K5 being greater than K5 to K1 seems credible. However, for me, a camera upgrade is about a lot more than noise and DR, and so the K5 doesn't offer it all in one go .... In most ways it's the same camera to me, so has no appeal as a spending priority. I understand the bang per buck point, but ultimately I hope to make a greater leap to a camera that will offer a totally fresh start for me. I've got mainly FF lenses, so if I can justify the spending in the future it may well be a K1.

Thanks again for the excellent demonstration of shadow recovery and noise performance comparisons.

Dr Orloff wrote:The K5 sensor represented a quantum leap. That won't happen with the K-1. The D810 is better than the K5 but the performance gap between them is nowhere near the gap above, not even close. That's why I don't think you won't see a huge gain with the K-1 (same sensor as the Nikon) and that's why I reckon a minimal cost upgrade from K7 to K5 is the biggest photographic bang for buck.

And this is why, although I'm mostly very pleased with the K-3, which I will keep, my next camera will probably be a second hand K-5 II.

Clearly a lot of people would want to see the 16mp sensor continued in an ongoing K5 line, alongside the K3 series. Not sure if Ricoh would answer that call though? 16 is not a very high sounding number these days ......

Nah, I wouldn't go for it. I hope they release a new K7 with its very own bundled HDR Software Suite!

McGregNi wrote:Thanks Adrian, that's a powerful demonstration of some of the points that have been made recently! Certainly there's a huge amount of rescue available from those K5 underexposed areas, and it looks perfectly usable as well for screen use at least, maybe even prints.(I presume no NR processing ....?).

The potential is even greater with an ETTR approach, where those shadow areas were exposed higher. I've no doubt that with a K5 I would be less likely to turn to HDR and more likely to use single shots and two shot blends, although the HDR processing is fun and absorbing.

If the argument is restricted to noise and DR related IQ matters, then your 'incredible' claim about the leap from K7 to K5 being greater than K5 to K1 seems credible. However, for me, a camera upgrade is about a lot more than noise and DR, and so the K5 doesn't offer it all in one go .... In most ways it's the same camera to me, so has no appeal as a spending priority. I understand the bang per buck point, but ultimately I hope to make a greater leap to a camera that will offer a totally fresh start for me. I've got mainly FF lenses, so if I can justify the spending in the future it may well be a K1.

Thanks again for the excellent demonstration of shadow recovery and noise performance comparisons.

I understand that point, but for a very modest outlay you could be enjoying that wonderful dynamic range on a camera with familiar controls and features to your K-7 while you await that big Quantum leap in features your'e also aiming for

You're still missing the key point .... I enjoy the dynamic range of the K7, and I enjoy working with it, in many different processing ways. My NR workflow has become most refined and efficient.

Of course, I'm looking forward to higher IQ overall eventually, and it's an inevitable benefit of living in the 21st century that it won't be too far away. But spending money now solely to avoid HDR processing or noise reduction work is not really a priority, especially when I would miss those things.

There's pride, sure. ..... And stubbornness ! We've seen a good demo of the jump in sensor technologies, and the idea that it was a bigger jump than that which is coming. I accept all that, but fortunately my own pictures are not all blighted with noise. I have pushed the limits a fair bit though, and agree its time to be making new choices. The K1 on the horizon will have a big influence on that process, for many people I'd imagine.

I see my photography equipment needs in terms of the wider system, including the flash gear that I've spent a fair bit on over the last couple of years. The camera is only one part of it all. If there was plenty more money to dispose of on my photography then I'd most likely already have a K3, which I would have seen as my natural progression.

Given what you like about the K-7 Nigel, at today's prices the K-5 seems a no brainer mate, regardless of the K-1.

I'm not a big fan of the pixel peeping dxo mark type scores, as a camera is always going by to be the sum of all its parts... But the K-5 series still holds its own there. Sensor tech really hasn't moved along at the same significant improvement rate since then.

Yes, its the same physical camera, that's another plus, I know that. But I thought your charity fund was only for my new K1 battery grip, Richard !

Its a powerful argument guys, I appreciate that and its really nice to have so much good advice. I hope my upgrade is not too far off now ... lets see what prices settle down to being once the K1 has had its market impact. Truth is, as I said above, I look at it in terms of my whole system, very limited funds for more photography gear, an great interest at present in the new Cactus V6MkII for radio triggered HSS, and desires for a new wider / standard zoom replacement. Also, I think I just like to buy new cameras, so will really enjoy that one day when it comes.

Nigel, perhaps you have a subconscious fear that if you applied the skills you have developed with your K-7 to the images from a K-5 (or II or IIs), the quality of the results would cancel many of the justifications for the extra spending required to get a K-1?

In Nigel's defence it would be true to say that the K1 is more future proof than the K5 and therefore would be a better long term proposition. If he goes for the K5 now he will perhaps have to put off the move to FF until the K1ii or whatever it will be called.